Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
7 November 2013 at 13:56 #20150
I wondered about that as well. I thought I saw a River reference in “run you pretty boy and remember” .
Nick
7 November 2013 at 13:52 #20149if you don’t want the plot of the 5oth to be spoiled you have to avoid the news as well as the spoiler thread surely ? Is there a substantive difference between an official spoiler and an unofficial one ? Both do the same thing IF you want to be unspoiled
đ feeling frivolous as the weekend starts in 7 minutesÂ
Nick
7 November 2013 at 13:41 #201467 November 2013 at 13:31 #20143I’m sure @wolfweed can confirm this “Moment” exists as he and I briefly discussed it a while back (although it was in context of a Who comic strip). I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in this though as a lot is probably due to short replies (which can be misconstrued) and mis-understandings from what I read đ .
Personal view:
Whilst I enjoy reading the various theories and posts here (and agree with many of the points as they do appear valid based on what we’ve seen to date) I thoroughly expect Moffat to surprise and wow us (at least visually and emotionally although I’m less convinced the underlying plotting will be up to much based on his track record to date) but ultimately Moffat will deliver what we don’t expect to see as the heart of the story.
My guess is that whilst we’ll see glimpses of the Time War (the picture releases seem to tell us this) and there’ll be references to the (Hurt ?) Doctor genocide act (the use of the Moment) I’m not sure we’ll get much Time War proper content. Many here, want the timelock to stay in place (for good narrative reasons – bringing back the timelords could be problematic) so I’m not sure that the genocide act and the timelock will be undone. I think it could well be modified though (to rehabilitate Hurt (?) Doctor) perhaps along the lines of @Bluesqueakpips time children idea.
Either in the 50th or in the Christmas show, the Doctor’s character (and the series in a way) will be reset back to something closer to BG Who and the current lonely god/madman in a box or whatever phrase best sums up AG Who to date will pass into history with something new to replace it for Capaldi (with revised regeneration cycle). The “how” remains a mystery for me.
Cheers
Nick
7 November 2013 at 12:23 #20137what idea was attacked ? I’ve looked back over the posts and its not obvious to me (sorry).
I hadn’t appreciated everything in the transcript when I watched the episode way back when, but this surely kills off any idea that Hurt Doctor can be anything but the Doctor who ended the Time War surely?
Thanks for a timely reminder.
Nick
7 November 2013 at 12:17 #20136This line of yours (some way back):
I think the current direction is one where Moffat’s wrapping up the beginning of NuWho â putting that shell-shocked war veteran to rest and letting the man (or woman) behind ‘The Doctor’ start to live again. As Churchill once said:
‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
sums up the way things are heading in the 5oth/Christmas very eloquently (and its about 2 years overdue in my opinion đ ). Still I can’t help thinking Moffat is going to do more with his reboot.
Cheers
Nick
7 November 2013 at 12:03 #20134I guess from your comment, that you don’t think this is an effect of Clara (or rather her multiple Claricles) being in the Doctor’s time line for so long that she has picked up his mannerisms and become Doctor-like ?
[the problem with this being of course she’s mirroring 11 and not 1 to 10, although you could argue she’d mirror any of then other incarnations (do we still use that word ?) if she was with one of the others]
Nick
6 November 2013 at 11:18 #20090all of that and more I rather think including Moffat’s reboot back to day 1 and doctor 0. I agree not too much footage of the Time War itself, but I guess there’ll be an explanation that ties the Doctor/Regeneration limit/Time war/Daleks/Silence/GI/Susan/Clara together (somehow) out of which the reboot (more of a restart I hope) is derived.
Doing all this in 77 minutes is a big ask especially as the anniversary show is event TV so the story has to have an exciting stand alone narrative as well. I don’t know if this means it need be a two parter in the proper sense, but I think it does mean that resolution of (some of these) arc concepts will be at Christmas.
Nick
6 November 2013 at 06:34 #20088to mis-quote WhoHar (and another 1960’s TV show) “anything can happen in the next 77 minutes”
Nick
5 November 2013 at 08:48 #20064It looks like we can expect two minisodes (of some sort) as well plus a short behind the lens documentary for Cinema goers
The first one is old news:
http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/the-day-of-the-doctor-trailer-extras-details-54597.htm
http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/50th-minisode-the-night-of-the-doctor-54703.htm
apologies to @wolfweed who has probably posted this already đ
Cheers
Nick
31 October 2013 at 13:51 #19723@shazzbot @wolfweed
Its a shame that Gatiss seems thinks all fans are die-hard ones (I’d prefer to say ARSEs in the current context)Â as this definition leaves me out in the cold. John Hurt’s comments about fans seem to be closer to the mark.
Nick
31 October 2013 at 13:00 #19714Well I did read the book more recently than I saw the story itself (once in 1975) I think you might be right now I think about it đ . I do 1/4 recall something about a homing signal being part of the plot so your memory isn’t that bad (assuming you’ve not just planted a false memory !).
Cheers
Nick
31 October 2013 at 12:54 #19713For example, when we meet the Tennant Doctor (if we do) and Rose, they’re fighting the Zygons. Who get defeated in the first five minutes, and then we go on to the rest of the story…
If I was a betting man (and I’m not) this is what I’d put my money on. I can also take a guess where we might find them based on some of the pictures in the News section. Since I think the pictures there are as much a spoiler for some members as the spoilers section I wont say more.
Nick
31 October 2013 at 12:40 #19706The 70 minute limit is a concern for me as well. However, I wonder if some of this will continue on into the Christmas Show. If the Christmas Show is more of a typical story like we’ve seen over the last few years, its going to be interesting to see how the regeneration happens.
Nick
31 October 2013 at 12:29 #19702Hi there. I recall that the Zygon spaceship blew-up at the end eliminating the Zygon problem from Earth (they reappear in various Books though). You’re absolutely right though, there has been very little or no bonkers theories I’ve come across or (so far as I’m aware) much in the way of Spoilers either.
I believe most spoilers out there (right now anyway) are actually “official” propaganda (whether to raise the audience/fan expectation, or to mis-lead or outright lie to us), I think that either the Zygons are going to have a major (so far hidden impact on the story) somehow or they will be a small part thrown into the mix as part of the 50th celebration element of the story. They also might not be the only returning “foe” as well.
Cheers
Nick
31 October 2013 at 10:53 #19690@Shazzbot
Let’s hope he had some draft thoughts down. Even so
Given the number of his posts here and on the Guardian I guess you could reconstruct his opinion (which would certainly be interesting to read), but of course it wouldn’t have the emotional depth to make it really special. Good luck.
Thanks
Nick
31 October 2013 at 10:27 #19686@Shazzbot
Did our departed friend ever summarise AG Who Doctors in the same way (I never saw anything quite like this series of blogs certainly)
Thanks
Nick
30 October 2013 at 07:02 #19569My condolences to your family and friends. I am very saddened to hear this news this morning. Others here have expressed the impact of his writing and debating here better than I can, so I will say no more than I will miss him.
Nick
29 October 2013 at 05:23 #19505Very interesting observation. The actor’s name is Claudia Grant. I’m not convinced myself, but since the image in the globe has been digitally altered, I wouldn’t rule it out.
Nick
28 October 2013 at 12:43 #19453Always felt those bowed Time Lords were a plot line that needed some exploration in the End of Time specials, they seemed too tied to that plot to leave hanging.
There were a few of those I seem to recall…
Nick
24 October 2013 at 13:16 #19206@jimthefish @Shazzbot @craig @phaseshift
How about a poll about having polls ?
(sorry I couldn’t help bring down the tone of your otherwise fascinating – seriously – discussion)
24 October 2013 at 12:23 #19201You may well be right there. Apart from the 13 Doctor limit and the Doctors PTSD driven personality, just what can really be “reset” in your opinion ? (or perhaps better expressed as what would you (or any one else Dear Forumers) change given the chance ?).
I take your point about the various resets and why should we be worried by it. (personally I would say I sit as some sort of mĂ©lange between concerned, slightly bothered and perturbed amongst others). I’m not sure I have an answer to that question and truth be told, I probably won’t be able to think about answering it until I see how the various plot arc strands we’ve seen under Moffat’s term pan out [which is something I do believe we’ll see before he departs as showrunner]. All I can say right now, is that I’ve found too much to be unsatisfying for me, although I have really liked Moffat’s ambition to try something.
Cheers
Nick
24 October 2013 at 06:43 #19186@timeloop @Shazzbot @jimthefish
The trailer could certainly be used instead of the opening titles (at about 40 seconds – if you remove the Matt Smith and end titles – is it long enough though). My guess is that it (and others probably – perhaps a new one for the Christmas show) will be shown in the Cinemas prior to 50th episode in nice 3D and super high resolution…
Cheers
Nick
24 October 2013 at 06:37 #19185@Shazzbot @jimthefish
Having a replica of all the consoles could reflect something needed for the 50th or Chrismas show as Jim suggests or it could just be part of the sets they use for the various events that are now held. If for example, the theme was Doctor past and present, these sets plus other props (original or remade) and (with a little help from Madame Tussauds) the odd Doctor would look pretty good.
Nick
23 October 2013 at 15:06 #19136some random text to keep the content invisible
Which cross do you mean Nick?
its the sort of flat “S” shapes at the very bottom of the letter. I think its a distinctive Tudor style ending to a letter.
Do you think the Dalekes could be in Gallifrey in the first two pictures?
A couple of these and some other pictures have the Round shaped diagrams (look at the close up of the far wall in the second image). These are Gallifreyean in design, so the set is supposed to be Time Lord related. Whether its Gallifrey itself, a Tardis or some sort of TimeLord base or something else entirely – your guess is as good as mine :).
Do you think this could be a major clue?
Yes and no is my opinion. They’re set pictures so there is a clue to the locations and events (eg the Daleks are invading a Time Lord base and have suffered significant casualties), but whether this is what happens in those sets on screen (we see a battle) or whether the Doctor passes through afterwards (on his way to do something else) is unknowable. The production team aren’t giving away that much in practice (but of courses its more than some people want to see).
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 13:23 #19133Yes, Hurt could be a future Doctor (between Smith and Capaldi say). The only substantive objection I’m aware of (bound to be others though) is that D11 refers to him in the past tense. This and the apparent link to the Time War lends itself to a pre-11 setting better than a post 11. That said, I’m always (probably) going to have problems reconciling myself to the whole impossible girl narrative which opens the door to whatever retcon element Moffat wants to include so to an extent its a difficult place to debate right now.
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 12:53 #19128@Shazzbot
even as I was trying to summarise my thoughts, I was aware that it could be done (and could be done in a convincing way too). But I can’t find anything in myself that makes me feel likes its something that SHOULD be done. Yes Hartnell Doctor and Susan left Gallifrey for a reason and BG Who hints at what this might have been, but to make Hurt D0 who starts/ends/fights the Time War and only show us the psychological damage that this does to the Doctor from Eccleston onwards doesn’t feel right to me. Again I’m sure this too could be convincingly explained of course.
I have to therefore think that if the 50th show does explain the start (and Susan) then the explanation has to be something other than what we’ve seen/hinted at in Moffat arcs. Like the Doctor’s real Gallifreyean name, I can’t help thinking that any actual explanation shown will be less useful than the ambiguity we have had to date for the future of Who on TV.
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 12:05 #19119random text..
Great picture. Out of interest how does this differ from the pic you’ve just posted in the News thread ?
Thanks
Nick
23 October 2013 at 12:03 #19118Excellent analysis. I’m don’t really agree about this:
I do like the Doctor-Zero theories, mainly because the Doctor 8.5 concept has never felt right for me
I’m in the other camp on that one. I find D0 concept hard to believe as the Hartnell Doctor seems so lost at the beginning. To me he has little practical experience in time travel (the difference say between being an Historian academic and actually experiencing real off world things for the first time) who grows into being the Doctor over the first series. Hartnell’s regeneration also seems to be his first actual experience of the process. From the pictures/image, more than anything else, Hurt Doctor seems much more of a commanding figure. It would almost be like reverse character development to go from Hurt to Hartnell. Of course I’m influenced by my BG Who background, Moffat shown that he’s happy to Retcon most things to fit in with his concepts.
I agree through, the feel does seem to be that we may get an explanation of who Susan is and why the Doctor left Gallifrey (running for all my lives.. to paraphrase the voice over).
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 11:42 #19115I don’t think the trailer is related to the 50th episode directly, so I think the head line you read was misleading. I think there are some hidden clues mixed in with what is otherwise a celebration of the 50 years of the show to date. The trailer showed at Comicom in the US (which hasn’t been leaked so far as I know) did show real material though. I think its likely that this trailer will be shown in high resolution and 3D before the 50th though.
I’m not sure, but the only thing that’s been on the screen for longer than Who in the UK is Coronation Street (a Soap) and Sky at Night (monthly astronomy programme). Not sure about the US or anywhere else though.
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 10:00 #1910923 October 2013 at 09:58 #19108Very pertinent point. However, with the new(ish) digital based projectors I wonder if they can be streamed directly to via the web ?. If the BBC has to distribute multiple super quality DVDs (or whatever they use for the medium these days) then the logistic change will be an issue from a security point as well. I’d guess a day before courier service might be the latest it could be safely delayed to and even earlier for any overseas distribution.
I know from my personal dealings with the Cinema industry that it isn’t unusual to balance the digital sound/image with the particular screen to optimize the quality (loudness, surround sound balance etc) and this needs to be done before the screening. It seems to me that at least some cinema staff are therefore likely to see it before broadcast a la your Brother.
Nick
23 October 2013 at 09:42 #19105The style of the painting of Tenant and the cross shaping (no idea what its called really) on the bottom of the letter appears to be vaguely Tudorish to my (poor in this aspect) eye (say 1530 to 1600). It says “placed into the care of my government” which implies its unlikely to be the Doctor and more likely to be an English/British monarch (or written by the Doctor for a Monarch to sign perhaps ?).
On the other hand, the letter seems to be written in quite modern rather than olde (yuck) English to me. If it was a Royal letter (“my Government”) it should also be signed (and possibly sealed) by the Monarch of the time which seems to be missing in the pic.
Personally, I wouldn’t like to draw any conclusions myself, beyond its seems something interesting is going on somewhere đ .
Cheers
Nick
23 October 2013 at 07:16 #19100Hi there. The letter should be signed (Monarch’s name/initial Rex/Regina) of course if it is what it seems to be. Given the Trafalgar Square filming I seen suggestions that there may be a link to the National Portrait Gallery (but that may be drawing an inference too far of course). The other inference I’ve read elsewhere is that the Under Gallery contains something of value/danger that the Doctor will need to protect/deal with. This seems a reasonable inference to me. It seems like we are being teased….
Cheers
Nick
22 October 2013 at 15:03 #19048I think @wolfweed (probably) posted a pic of Mark Gattis with the (new) old style console a while back, so its probably been built for the drama-doc he’s written. It’ll be interesting to see whether they reuse it for something else (other than this).
Cheers
Nick
22 October 2013 at 12:43 #1904022 October 2013 at 12:01 #19035@bluesqueakpip – not that I had noticed. Again, I may have a different view of what a spoiler is than @timeloop, but a direct quote from Moffat in a newspaper interview isn’t a spoiler unless he says something in particular about this or future shows surely ? He doesn’t eitherway.
I agree with your sentiment (and @timeloop) on spoilers which is why I didn’t actually repeat either the comment he made or the link @wolfweed posted. Its a fine line I know and I apologise to any one who thinks I crossed the line. It certainly wasn’t deliberate (ie I didn’t think it was a spoiler in the sense we couldn’t discuss it in the present thread).
Cheers
Nick
22 October 2013 at 11:53 #19034@timeloop – which is why I didn’t discuss the contents here, merely expressing surprise at the lack of discussion at all. If you’ve read what @wolfweed posted their, I think you’d see that it fits reasonably well into the Doctor zero discussion that’s happening right here now. Whilst @wolfweed posted it in spoilers it could have been posted here, in news thread or in several other threads equally easily – Moffat gives absolutely nothing away at all.
Cheers
Nick
22 October 2013 at 11:36 #19029Me too. Whilst I’m not 100 % convinced on repeated staring at the picture its true, it was certainly my initial impression as well. Given how much time and thought this has obviously taken to produce its hard to believe this isn’t deliberate (whether as deception or clue is another matter).
I’m surprised (or have I missed it ?) there’s been no discussion regarding Moffat’s Independent interview comment on regeneration you posted on the spoilers thread the other day either.
Cheers
Nick
21 October 2013 at 15:09 #18916I get a certain sense that there’s meant to be a 3D trailer (and its meant to be seen that way) and I therefore wonder if the 3D to 2D conversion has also had an impact. I agree with your comment on the stylization of the images . It looks to me that they’ve certainly used CGI effects on some of the images they’ve used to give this sort of style. The globe image is a case in point. I can see a bit of Jenna, Liz and Carole in there, no doubt deliberately.
Cheers
Nick
21 October 2013 at 14:49 #18915Apart from one deliberately pays homage to the other, I obviously don’t see what you do đ I’ve seen a few colour pictures of Hartnell on a few of the First Doctor DVDs that really look quite similar to the clearest Hartnell image in the trailer, so I’m afraid I don’t see anything particular their either :(.
Cheers
Nick
21 October 2013 at 14:30 #18910@Shazzbot @scaryb
Shazzbot, I’m sorry I don’t see any specific resemblance to Hartnell at all. I found a still image (lifted from the video I suppose) of the policeman via Google image search for Reg Cranfield (the original actor). here the difference in resemblance is much clearer to see.
It could well be Hurt in the trailer though, although I’m not entirely convinced from the still frame you posted (I found the moving image appeared closer to Hurt in impression). Regardless of the image processing they’ve done, I find it very difficult to believe its an image of Reg in the trailer.
Cheers
Nick
21 October 2013 at 14:11 #18907@Shazzbot @htpbdet
Dear mini-HTPBDETS (I really think it should be a capital S), I apologize for being completely unobservant on that !
Cheers
Nick
21 October 2013 at 13:47 #18901Hi mini-HTPBDET. I certainly thought it might have been John Hurt at first glance, although studying the screen cap that @Shazzbot referred to, I’m less convinced. I’ve searched for Reg Cranfield on Google and I agree with your uncle that the new picture doesn’t seem to be him. I thought it might in fact be an image from Mark Gatiss’ forthcoming drama-doc. Certainly I thought the opening scenes could have re-used the Trotter’s Lane sets that they may well have recreated for the documentary.
Please tell your uncle we all wishing him well here.
Nick
10 October 2013 at 22:36 #18177watching Sky News – paper review headlines show the missing episodes makes the front page of the mirror tomorrow
10 October 2013 at 22:22 #18175i cant remember a night like it, although I have to say they could have done a live BBC 1 extravangaza instead of the embargo (sorry going all ARSEy their for a moment)
cheers
Nick
10 October 2013 at 22:19 #18173The Independent and the Northern Echo both posted the details on their web sites tonight (before pulling them) which agreed with what Lance Parkin said he’d been told. That part of the mystery seems to have been resolved, but ……
Cheers
Nick
10 October 2013 at 22:06 #18169That makes perfect sense although the leaks/rumour i read implied that they had already been restored by BBC Worldwide. It seems the “more to come” element (if its true) would be the unrestored element. Still only 2 hours to go đ although since its already 1 am here, I suspect I’ll be asleep đ
Cheers
Nick
10 October 2013 at 21:55 #18164Do you think they will be on sale tomorrow ? It would seem unusual (to me anyway) for the BBC to prioritise downloads rather than DVD’s retailers. I’d have thought a release date might be more likely ? I would have thought the story would have leaked earlier if there was going to be a DVD release given the logistics.
Cheers
Nick
10 October 2013 at 20:46 #18150 -
AuthorPosts
